Comment: I've been told that when challenged by the issue that the brand
"LifeStyles" condoms had a higher percentage of breakage when used during
anal intercourse, an executive representative for the corporation gave a
flippant, unconcerned response that indicated the company didn't really
care, as that would only serve to further the deaths of gays, and that was
of no concern to them. I do find this a bit hard to believe, if for no
other reason than it would stand to reason that most companies should
recognize, that, despite whatever their own personal perspectives on any
given subject matter may be, it's certainly not good business to alienate
a large portion of their demographic. I've found no evidence to support
the rumor, and, while I'm sure such a thing wouldn't have been widely
publicized, I can't even find anything to support there ever was a rumor
to such an effect.

Let's see - bad business to alienate a segment of the community which is urged to use a condom every time they have sex. Really bad business to be flippant about your product not giving the protection that so many people use them primarily for (i.e. disease prevention, as opposed to birth control purposes, for which gay couples have no concern and hetero couples ought to be using a backup' method as well anyway), which could turn really bad liability claims into really bad liability claims with enormous punitive damages.

soooo - can executives be that stupid? Yes. likely in this instance - no.

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who participate in anal sex.
Not all homosexuals participate in anal sex.
A condom doesn't know what hole it's been put into.

I could maybe see that components in certain lubricants more commonly used in anal sex might weaken a condom more than KY jelly (or generic knock-offs), but that would be a condom + lubricant = breakage scenario more than it would be a condom + anal sex = breakage scenario.

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who participate in anal sex.
Not all homosexuals participate in anal sex.
A condom doesn't know what hole it's been put into.

I could maybe see that components in certain lubricants more commonly used in anal sex might weaken a condom more than KY jelly (or generic knock-offs), but that would be a condom + lubricant = breakage scenario more than it would be a condom + anal sex = breakage scenario.

The first two are certainly flaws. The last one, though... a condom might not know what hole it is in, but it does know how much resistance or friction that hole generates. Anal sex in general may be more likely to tear a condom because of the amount of resistance, and where the resistance is (mostly around the entrance as opposed to evenly distributed.

The first two are certainly flaws. The last one, though... a condom might not know what hole it is in, but it does know how much resistance or friction that hole generates. Anal sex in general may be more likely to tear a condom because of the amount of resistance, and where the resistance is (mostly around the entrance as opposed to evenly distributed.

Maybe, but I think purpleiguana's point is that the condom doesn't know whether it's gay or straight anal sex. Which goes to the OP.

They could be confusing spermacide with different brands of condom - spermicide kills HIV, but can also irritate, um, delicate areas ... inside. That increases the chances that HIV could be passed onto the partner. It seems like the use of spermacidal lubricant can slightly increase the chance of getting HIV.

I actually meant vagina vs. anus. And while the anus does have the ole' double sphincter thing going for it, that doesn't necessarily mean that it would offer more resistance. I would imagine that folks who regularly partake of anal sex would be pretty good at relaxation techniques.

I heard a similar UL about Trojans back in the early '90s. Supposedly the company's owner said he wished gays would stop using his products so that they'd all die of AIDS or some such. As is usually the case with such stories, nobody ever seemed to know when he had said that, or even his name for that matter.

I'm a bit curious. When did the condom manufacturers start doing massive testing of their products for anal intercourse?
Most condom manufacturers have notices on the packages advising that "any use for other than vaginal intercourse can increase the potential of damage to the condom". Seriously, outside the major metro areas which have large gay populations, I'd think the average condom-buyer would have to make do with regular condoms (or do mail order which can run into some big dollars).